Myocardial injury and cardiovascular complications in COVID-19: a cohort study in severe and critical patients. / Lesão miocárdica e complicações cardiovasculares na COVID-19: estudo de coorte em pacientes graves e críticos.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize myocardial injury and cardiovascular complications and their predictors in severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Myocardial injury was defined as blood levels of cardiac troponin above the 99th percentile upper reference limit. Cardiovascular events considered were the composite of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, heart failure and arrhythmia. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression or Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine predictors of myocardial injury. RESULTS: Of 567 patients with severe and critical COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, 273 (48.1%) had myocardial injury. Of the 374 patients with critical COVID-19, 86.1% had myocardial injury, and also showed more organ dysfunction and higher 28-day mortality (56.6% versus 27.1%, p < 0.001). Advanced age, arterial hypertension and immune modulator use were predictors of myocardial injury. Cardiovascular complications occurred in 19.9% of patients with severe and critical COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, with most events occurring in patients with myocardial injury (28.2% versus 12.2%, p < 0.001). The occurrence of an early cardiovascular event during intensive care unit stay was associated with higher 28-day mortality compared with late or no events (57.1% versus 34% versus 41.8%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Myocardial injury and cardiovascular complications were commonly found in patients with severe and critical forms of COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, and both were associated with increased mortality in these patients.

OBJETIVO: Caracterizar a lesão miocárdica e as complicações cardiovasculares e seus preditores em pacientes graves e críticos com COVID-19 admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva. MÉTODOS: Este foi um estudo de coorte observacional em pacientes graves e críticos com COVID-19 admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva. A lesão miocárdica foi definida como níveis sanguíneos de troponina cardíaca acima do limite de referência superior ao percentil 99. Os eventos cardiovasculares considerados foram combinação de trombose venosa profunda, embolia pulmonar, acidente vascular cerebral, infarto do miocárdio, isquemia aguda de membros, isquemia mesentérica, insuficiência cardíaca e arritmia cardíaca. Regressão logística univariada e multivariada ou modelos de risco proporcional de Cox foram utilizados para determinar os preditores de lesão miocárdica. RESULTADOS: Foram admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva 567 pacientes graves e críticos com COVID-19, dos quais 273 (48,1%) apresentavam lesão miocárdica. Dos 374 pacientes críticos com COVID-19, 86,1% tinham lesão miocárdica, além de apresentarem mais disfunção orgânica e maior mortalidade aos 28 dias (56,6% versus 27,1%; p < 0,001). Foram preditores de lesão miocárdica idade avançada, hipertensão arterial e uso de imunomoduladores. Complicações cardiovasculares ocorreram em 19,9% dos pacientes graves e críticos com COVID-19 admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva, e a maioria dos eventos deu-se em pacientes com lesão miocárdica (28,2% versus 12,2%; p < 0,001). A ocorrência de evento cardiovascular precoce durante internação em unidade de terapia intensiva estava associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias em comparação com eventos tardios ou inexistentes (57,1% versus 34,0% versus 41,8%; p = 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: Pacientes com formas graves e críticas de COVID-19 admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva foram comumente diagnosticados com lesão miocárdica e complicações cardiovasculares, e ambas estavam associadas à maior mortalidade nesses pacientes.

Diagnostic accuracy of a set of clinical and radiological criteria for screening of COVID-19 using RT-PCR as the reference standard.

BACKGROUND: The gold-standard method for establishing a microbiological diagnosis of COVID-19 is reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a set of clinical-radiological criteria for COVID-19 screening in patients with severe acute respiratory failure (SARF) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) as the reference standard. METHODS: Diagnostic accuracy study including a historical cohort of 1009 patients consecutively admitted to ICUs across six hospitals in Curitiba (Brazil) from March to September, 2020. The sample was stratified into groups by the strength of suspicion for COVID-19 (strong versus weak) using parameters based on three clinical and radiological (chest computed tomography) criteria. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed by RT-PCR (referent). RESULTS: With respect to RT-PCR, the proposed criteria had 98.5% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 97.5-99.5%) sensitivity, 70% (95% CI 65.8-74.2%) specificity, 85.5% (95% CI 83.4-87.7%) accuracy, PPV of 79.7% (95% CI 76.6-82.7%) and NPV of 97.6% (95% CI 95.9-99.2%). Similar performance was observed when evaluated in the subgroups of patients admitted with mild/moderate respiratory disfunction, and severe respiratory disfunction. CONCLUSION: The proposed set of clinical-radiological criteria were accurate in identifying patients with strong versus weak suspicion for COVID-19 and had high sensitivity and considerable specificity with respect to RT-PCR. These criteria may be useful for screening COVID-19 in patients presenting with SARF.

Hospitalizations for COVID-19 in a tertiary hospital in Brazil: a parallel with vaccination.

This study aimed to evaluate the COVID-19 hospitalizations in a tertiary hospital by age group and month, considering the introduction and the advance of the vaccination against the disease. The laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations among people aged 20 years or older, that occurred between March 2020 and June 2021, were distributed by month of symptom onset and age group. The proportion of hospitalizations by age group was calculated for the year 2021. The proportions were compared using the chi-square test for trends. The marks of vaccination advances among different age groups were taken from the official website LocalizaSUS. In 2020, hospitalizations among people aged 60-80 years old were the most frequent (39.1%). From January-June 2021, when the vaccination commenced, while hospitalizations of patients aged 20 to < 40 and 40 to 60 years old showed an increasing trend, the older age groups and those with vaccination recommendations (from 60 to < 80 and from 80 or over) showed a downward trend. As of June 2021, with widespread vaccination, a drop in hospitalizations was observed in > 60 years old. At 20 to <40 and 40 to < 60, an increase in hospitalizations was observed. It demonstrates the important role of vaccination in combating the COVID-19 pandemic.

Surging ICU during COVID-19 pandemic: an overview.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed great challenges to intensive care units (ICUs) across the globe. The objective of this review is to provide an overview on how ICU surging was managed during COVID-19 pandemic, with a special focus on papers published in the last 18 months. RECENT FINDINGS: From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was apparent that the biggest challenge was the inequity of access to an adequately equipped and staffed ICU bed. The first wave was overwhelming; large surge of patients required critical care, resources were limited and non-COVID-19 care processes were severely compromised. Various approaches were used to address ICU staffing shortage and to expand the physical ICU space capacity. Because of restrictions to family visitations in most ICUs, the pandemic posed a threat to communication and family-centered ICU care. The pandemic, especially during the first wave, was accompanied by a high level of apprehension in the community, many uncertainties about clinical course and therapy and an influx of speculations and misinformation. SUMMARY: Although healthcare systems learned how to face some of the challenges with subsequent waves, the pandemic had persistent effects on healthcare systems.

Anti-C5a antibody (vilobelimab) therapy for critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PANAMO): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vilobelimab, an anti-C5a monoclonal antibody, was shown to be safe in a phase 2 trial of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Here, we aimed to determine whether vilobelimab in addition to standard of care improves survival outcomes in this patient population. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial was performed at 46 hospitals in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years or older who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, but not more than 48 h after intubation at time of first infusion, had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 60-200 mm Hg, and a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any variant in the past 14 days were eligible for this study. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive standard of care and vilobelimab at a dose of 800 mg intravenously for a maximum of six doses (days 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, and 22) or standard of care and a matching placebo using permuted block randomisation. Treatment was not continued after hospital discharge. Participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality at 28 days in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly assigned participants regardless of whether a patient started treatment, excluding patients randomly assigned in error) and measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Safety analyses included all patients who had received at least one infusion of either vilobelimab or placebo. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04333420. FINDINGS: From Oct 1, 2020, to Oct 4, 2021, we included 368 patients in the ITT analysis (full analysis set; 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group). One patient in the vilobelimab group was excluded from the primary analysis due to random assignment in error without treatment. At least one dose of study treatment was given to 364 (99%) patients (safety analysis set). 54 patients (31%) of 177 in the vilobelimab group and 77 patients (40%) of 191 in the placebo group died in the first 28 days. The all-cause mortality rate at 28 days was 32% (95% CI 25-39) in the vilobelimab group and 42% (35-49) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·50-1·06; p=0·094). In the predefined analysis without site-stratification, vilobelimab significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·96; p=0·027). The most common TEAEs were acute kidney injury (35 [20%] of 175 in the vilobelimab group vs 40 [21%] of 189 in the placebo), pneumonia (38 [22%] vs 26 [14%]), and septic shock (24 [14%] vs 31 [16%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 103 (59%) of 175 patients in the vilobelimab group versus 120 (63%) of 189 in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: In addition to standard of care, vilobelimab improves survival of invasive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and leads to a significant decrease in mortality. Vilobelimab could be considered as an additional therapy for patients in this setting and further research is needed on the role of vilobelimab and C5a in other acute respiratory distress syndrome-causing viral infections. FUNDING: InflaRx and the German Federal Government.

Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. / Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19: Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

OBJETIVOS: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. RESULTADOS: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Perceptions of Critical Care Shortages, Resource Use, and Provider Well-being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of 1,985 Health Care Providers in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Brazil has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, placing a high burden on ICUs. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are perceptions of ICU resource availability associated with end-of-life decisions and burnout among health care providers (HCPs) during COVID-19 surges in Brazil? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We electronically administered a survey to multidisciplinary ICU HCPs during two 2-week periods (in June 2020 and March 2021) coinciding with COVID-19 surges. We examined responses across geographical regions and performed multivariate regressions to explore factors associated with reports of: (1) families being allowed less input in decisions about maintaining life-sustaining treatments for patients with COVID-19 and (2) emotional distress and burnout. RESULTS: We included 1,985 respondents (57% physicians, 14% nurses, 12% respiratory therapists, 16% other HCPs). More respondents reported shortages during the second surge compared with the first (P < .05 for all comparisons), including lower availability of intensivists (66% vs 42%), ICU nurses (53% vs 36%), ICU beds (68% vs 22%), and ventilators for patients with COVID-19 (80% vs 70%); shortages were highest in the North. One-quarter of HCPs reported that families were allowed less input in decisions about maintaining life-sustaining treatments for patients with COVID-19, which was associated with lack of intensivists (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.80) and ICU beds (aRR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.16-2.62) during the first surge and lack of N95 masks (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10-1.85), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (aRR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07), and oxygen concentrators (aRR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.13-2.00) during the second surge. Burnout was higher during the second surge (60% vs 71%; P < .001), associated with witnessing colleagues at one's hospital contract COVID-19 during both surges (aRR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.25-1.93] and 1.31 [95% CI, 1.11-1.55], respectively), as well as worries about finances (aRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.61) and lack of ICU nurses (aRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.53) during the first surge. INTERPRETATION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ICU HCPs in Brazil experienced substantial resource shortages, health care disparities between regions, changes in end-of-life care associated with resource shortages, and high proportions of burnout.

Tocilizumab and remdesivir in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" was 14 (95% CI 12-15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11-16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78-1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or "ready for discharge" to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Case Study of Two Post Vaccination SARS-CoV-2 Infections with P1 Variants in CoronaVac Vaccinees in Brazil.

The rapid development of efficacious and safe vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been instrumental in mitigating the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Moreover, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised concerns on the efficacy of these vaccines. Herein, we report two cases of breakthrough infections with the P1 variant in patients vaccinated with CoronaVac, which is one of the two vaccines authorized for emergency use in the Brazilian immunization program. Our observations suggest that the vaccine reduced the severity of the disease and highlight the potential risk of illness following vaccination and subsequent infection with the P1 variant as well as for continued efforts to prevent and diagnose infection in vaccinated persons.

Presentation of fatal stroke due to SARS-CoV-2 and dengue virus coinfection.

Herein, we report a case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and dengue coinfection, presented as a fatal stroke in our hospital, in São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo State, a Brazilian city hyperendemic for dengue viruses and other arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) and currently facing a surge of SARS-CoV-2 cases. This case is the first described in the literature and contributes to the better understanding of clinical presentations of two important diseases in a tropical setting.

Technical note and clinical instructions for Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) in patients with Covid-19: Brazilian Society of Nephrology and Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine

ABSTRACT We produced this document to bring pertinent information to the practice of nephrology, as regards to the renal involvement with COVID-19, the management of acute kidney injury cases, and practical guidance on the provision of dialysis support.As information on COVID-19 evolves at a pace never before seen in medical science, these recommendations, although based on recent scientific evidence, refer to the present moment. The guidelines may be updated when published data and other relevant information become available. RESUMO Este documento foi desenvolvido para trazer informações pertinentes à prática nefrológica em relação ao conhecimento sobre o acometimento renal da COVID-19, conduta frente aos casos de injúria renal aguda e orientações práticas sobre a provisão do suporte dialítico.Como as informações sobre a COVID-19 evoluem a uma velocidade jamais vista na ciência médica, as orientações apresentadas, embora baseadas em evidências científicas recentes, referem-se ao momento presente. Essas orientaços poderão ser atualizadas à medida que dados publicados e outras informações relevantes venham a ser disponibilizadas.

Technical note and clinical instructions for Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) in patients with Covid-19: Brazilian Society of Nephrology and Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine.

We produced this document to bring pertinent information to the practice of nephrology, as regards to the renal involvement with COVID-19, the management of acute kidney injury cases, and practical guidance on the provision of dialysis support.As information on COVID-19 evolves at a pace never before seen in medical science, these recommendations, although based on recent scientific evidence, refer to the present moment. The guidelines may be updated when published data and other relevant information become available.

Haemodynamic monitoring and management in COVID-19 intensive care patients: an International survey.

PURPOSE: To survey haemodynamic monitoring and management practices in intensive care patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A questionnaire was shared on social networks or via email by the authors and by Anaesthesia and/or Critical Care societies from France, Switzerland, Belgium, Brazil, and Portugal. Intensivists and anaesthetists involved in COVID-19 ICU care were invited to answer 14 questions about haemodynamic monitoring and management. RESULTS: Globally, 1000 questionnaires were available for analysis. Responses came mainly from Europe (n = 460) and America (n = 434). According to a majority of respondents, COVID-19 ICU patients frequently or very frequently received continuous vasopressor support (56%) and had an echocardiography performed (54%). Echocardiography revealed a normal cardiac function, a hyperdynamic state (43%), hypovolaemia (22%), a left ventricular dysfunction (21%) and a right ventricular dilation (20%). Fluid responsiveness was frequently assessed (84%), mainly using echo (62%), and cardiac output was measured in 69%, mostly with echo as well (53%). Venous oxygen saturation was frequently measured (79%), mostly from a CVC blood sample (94%). Tissue perfusion was assessed biologically (93%) and clinically (63%). Pulmonary oedema was detected and quantified mainly using echo (67%) and chest X-ray (61%). CONCLUSION: Our survey confirms that vasopressor support is not uncommon in COVID-19 ICU patients and suggests that different haemodynamic phenotypes may be observed. Ultrasounds were used by many respondents, to assess cardiac function but also to predict fluid responsiveness and quantify pulmonary oedema. Although we observed regional differences, current international guidelines were followed by most respondents.